Search RPD Archives
[AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 8: IPv4 Soft Landing
Douglas Onyango
ondouglas at yahoo.com
Thu May 21 11:04:33 UTC 2009
Mark,
I agree with you on the point of stopping allocations from going outside the AfriNIC region; However, the issue of making it part of the softlanding policy may cause abit of confusion as the end users can claim ignorance of it existing, this will compel us to add a reference to it in the current allocation policy..........................so why not just have it there?
The easier way to would be putting in the current policy or append it to the ULA, against which all LIR's sign before they get the addresses. If there is any factsheets that are sent out to prospecting addresses recepients, it can be updated to reflect this info.
Regards,
Douglas onyango +256(0712)981329
If you are not part of the solution, your are part of the Problem.
--- On Thu, 5/21/09, rpd-request at afrinic.net <rpd-request at afrinic.net> wrote:
From: rpd-request at afrinic.net <rpd-request at afrinic.net>
Subject: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 8
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Date: Thursday, May 21, 2009, 1:50 PM
Send rpd mailing list submissions to
rpd at afrinic.net
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
rpd-request at afrinic.net
You can reach the person managing the list at
rpd-owner at afrinic.net
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of rpd digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 (SM)
2. Re: Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 (Douglas Onyango)
3. Re: Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2 (Ernest - (AfriNIC))
4. IPv4 Soft Landing (Mark Elkins)
5. IPv6 Allocations for Non-Profit Networks (Mark Elkins)
6. Re: IPv6 Allocations for Non-Profit Networks (ALAIN AINA)
7. Re: IPv6 Allocations for Non-Profit Networks (Alan Barrett)
8. Re: IPv4 Soft Landing (Alan Barrett)
9. Re: IPv4 Soft Landing (McTim)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Tue, 19 May 2009 07:12:24 -0700
From: SM <sm at resistor.net>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2
To: "Ernest - (AfriNIC)" <ernest at afrinic.net>
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net, Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20090519061205.03fee5f8 at resistor.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Hi Ernest,
At 02:44 19-05-2009, Ernest - (AfriNIC) wrote:
>That graph is cumulative.
I read that incorrectly.
>Please find attached the graph showing numbers allocated *per year*
That shows around one third of a /8 IPv4 address block allocated in
the year 2007. The year 2008 doesn't follow the growth trend.
Regards,
-sm
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 00:41:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Message-ID: <755645.58085.qm at web52108.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Ernest,
Thanks for availing the stats and SM for the comments; its
very apparent that if we move by allocation we are going to have around two and
ahalf years to exhaust our /8 pool,
needless to mention that we intended to reserve another /16 for unforeseen
circumstances(Assumption: 0.350, is projected allocation for subsquent years)
Ernest, in the current v4 allocation policy, you require the
applicant to have proof of efficient use of address space, and also to have exceeded
an 80% utilization threshold before applying for any subsequent allocations.
Could you kindly bring up a similar graph (if possible),
only it should be based on usage as opposed to allocation.
Rationale: Allocations and actual usage we all agree are different,
and in a time of scarcity like this, I would suggest we work with stats from the later and formulate a
good policy and ensure adherence as we know this will be the switch to this
pools life support system.
Leo: Generosity beyond this level(both on allocation size and blocks), I really doubt if it will be possible.
Hard figures are not available so I cannot do any further
processing of the data, but If i were to take the highest value 0.350 as
projected allocations for the subsequent years, and factor in our current 90%
usage threshold, people should be able to use 10% more addresses before asking for more(10% delay)
Technically if we are not giving it out, we are keeping it,
hence the pools live can be sustained for an extra 10%; With all other factors
constant this would be approximately four years.
PS: Some factors may not remain constant in my assumptions,
but i believe the leverage from usage
based projections should even things.
Douglas onyango +256(0712)981329
If you are not part of the solution, your are part of the Problem.
--- On Tue, 5/19/09, SM <sm at resistor.net> wrote:
From: SM <sm at resistor.net>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2
To: "Ernest - (AfriNIC)" <ernest at afrinic.net>
Cc: "Douglas Onyango" <ondouglas at yahoo.com>, rpd at afrinic.net
Date: Tuesday, May 19, 2009, 5:12 PM
Hi Ernest,
At 02:44 19-05-2009, Ernest - (AfriNIC) wrote:
>That graph is cumulative.
I read that incorrectly.
>Please find attached the graph showing numbers allocated *per year*
That shows around one third of a /8 IPv4 address block allocated in
the year 2007. The year 2008 doesn't follow the growth trend.
Regards,
-sm
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20090520/bc3eb26c/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 3
Date: Wed, 20 May 2009 13:24:37 +0300
From: "Ernest - (AfriNIC)" <ernest at afrinic.net>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] Re: rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 2
To: Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at yahoo.com>
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
Message-ID: <4A13DA65.7090608 at afrinic.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
hi Douglas,
I take it you want to see the amount of address space (within the
AfriNIC service region) currently announced to the internet.
Please see:
http://airrs.afrinic.net/report/
Hope this helps.
regards,
eb.
> Could you kindly bring up a similar graph (if possible), only it
> should be based on usage as opposed to allocation.
------------------------------
Message: 4
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 09:55:39 +0200
From: Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za>
Subject: [AfriNIC-rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Message-ID: <1242892539.24617.9.camel at ilinux>
Content-Type: text/plain
The proposed policy states it only comes into effect for the last /8.
This does not stop a Non-African company abusing the current address
pool. Can this policy be extended to also state that as from now
(whenever that is), the current policy (afpol-v4200407-000) is
effectively amended to stop this.
--
. . ___. .__ Posix Systems - Sth Africa. e.164 VOIP ready
/| /| / /__ mje at posix.co.za - Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 12 807 0590 Cell: +27 82 601 0496
------------------------------
Message: 5
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 10:57:52 +0200
From: Mark Elkins <mje at posix.co.za>
Subject: [AfriNIC-rpd] IPv6 Allocations for Non-Profit Networks
To: AfriNIC Policy Working Group List <policy-wg at afrinic.net>
Message-ID: <1242896272.24617.22.camel at ilinux>
Content-Type: text/plain
I understand the authors desire for IPv6 address space - and in that
there seems to be no current way in which that can get address space -
as there is no RFC1918 address space for IPv6.
If AfriNIC were to allocate address space to such organisations at zero
cost that were truly not simply 'non-profit' but had no revenue
collection system or stream - then I'd be happy to see that happen.
They - of course - would have no membership privileges (ie - voting).
I only worry whether this could be abused.
I understand that it would be difficult to be policed.
--
. . ___. .__ Posix Systems - Sth Africa. e.164 VOIP ready
/| /| / /__ mje at posix.co.za - Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE
/ |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 12 807 0590 Cell: +27 82 601 0496
------------------------------
Message: 6
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 09:21:29 +0000
From: ALAIN AINA <aalain at trstech.net>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] IPv6 Allocations for Non-Profit Networks
To: mje at posix.co.za
Cc: AfriNIC Policy Working Group List <policy-wg at afrinic.net>
Message-ID: <FF505DE4-8A55-4DF1-9E23-C8C43A1F42E7 at trstech.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
On May 21, 2009, at 8:57 AM, Mark Elkins wrote:
> I understand the authors desire for IPv6 address space - and in that
> there seems to be no current way in which that can get address space -
> as there is no RFC1918 address space for IPv6.
ULA
--alain
>
>
> If AfriNIC were to allocate address space to such organisations at
> zero
> cost that were truly not simply 'non-profit' but had no revenue
> collection system or stream - then I'd be happy to see that happen.
> They - of course - would have no membership privileges (ie - voting).
>
> I only worry whether this could be abused.
> I understand that it would be difficult to be policed.
> --
> . . ___. .__ Posix Systems - Sth Africa. e.164 VOIP ready
> /| /| / /__ mje at posix.co.za - Mark J Elkins, Cisco CCIE
> / |/ |ARK \_/ /__ LKINS Tel: +27 12 807 0590 Cell: +27 82 601 0496
>
> _______________________________________________
> rpd mailing list
> rpd at afrinic.net
> https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20090521/dbf35cb9/attachment-0001.htm
------------------------------
Message: 7
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:24:50 +0300
From: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] IPv6 Allocations for Non-Profit Networks
To: AfriNIC Policy Working Group List <policy-wg at afrinic.net>
Message-ID: <20090521092450.GD1693 at apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Mark Elkins wrote:
> I understand the authors desire for IPv6 address space - and in that
> there seems to be no current way in which that can get address space -
> as there is no RFC1918 address space for IPv6.
It seems to me that the author's organisation could qualify as an LIR
and obtain an IPv6 /32 under existing policies. I don't understand the
relevance of RFC1918 above -- presumably the organisation would wan tto
be properly conencted to the global Internet, not to use private address
space. I also don't understand the relevance of the reference to IPv6
PI policy in the proposal -- the organisations targeted by this proposal
are themselves providers who would qualify as LIRs; they are not end
users who would need to either get space from an upstream provider or
get PI space from an RIR.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
------------------------------
Message: 8
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 12:27:17 +0300
From: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing
To: rpd at afrinic.net
Message-ID: <20090521092717.GE1693 at apb-laptoy.apb.alt.za>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
On Thu, 21 May 2009, Mark Elkins wrote:
> The proposed policy states it only comes into effect for the last /8.
>
> This does not stop a Non-African company abusing the current address
> pool. Can this policy be extended to also state that as from now
> (whenever that is), the current policy (afpol-v4200407-000) is
> effectively amended to stop this.
I think that policy changes to prevent the use of AfriNIC-allocated
adress space outside Africa should be done (if at all) in separate
proposals, not tacked on to a proposal about something different.
--apb (Alan Barrett)
------------------------------
Message: 9
Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 08:40:00 -0200
From: McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [AfriNIC-rpd] IPv4 Soft Landing
To: Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com>
Cc: rpd at afrinic.net
Message-ID:
<f65fb55e0905210340w5003328ds29c2018b334f67e at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 7:27 AM, Alan Barrett <apb at cequrux.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 May 2009, Mark Elkins wrote:
>> The proposed policy states it only comes into effect for the last /8.
>>
>> This does not stop a Non-African company abusing the current address
>> pool. Can this policy be extended to also state that as from now
>> (whenever that is), the current policy (afpol-v4200407-000) is
>> effectively amended to stop this.
>
> I think that policy changes to prevent the use of AfriNIC-allocated
> adress space outside Africa should be done (if at all) in separate
> proposals, not tacked on to a proposal about something different.
Agreed. One of the weaknesses of the original proposal was that it
tried to do too much.
--
Cheers,
McTim
http://stateoftheinternetin.ug
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
rpd mailing list
rpd at afrinic.net
https://lists.afrinic.net/mailman/listinfo.cgi/rpd
End of rpd Digest, Vol 37, Issue 8
**********************************
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.afrinic.net/pipermail/rpd/attachments/20090521/3b2b2f77/attachment.html>
More information about the RPD
mailing list